This is to inform that Graded Discussion Board (GDB) No. 01 will be opened on May 13th, 2014 for discussion and last date for posting your discussion will be May 14th, 2014
Topic/Area for Discussion
This Graded Discussion Board will cover first 13 lessons.
parishey thanks for sharing ...keep it up
Note for All Members: You don’t need to go any other site for this assignment/GDB/Online Quiz solution, Because All discussed data of our members in this discussion are going from here to other sites. You can judge this at other sites yourself. So don’t waste your precious time with different links.
YES,He can Claim i think:
Past consideration ----In the same clause the words "has done or abstained from doing" call for special attention. They declare the law to be that an act done by A. at B's request, without any promise from B., may be a consideration for a subsequent promise from B. to A. Now, the general principle of the common law is that in the formation of a contract the consideration is given and accepted in exchange for the promise. Hence the acceptance of the consideration and the giving of the promise must be simultaneous, and, in order to have the effect of binding the party making it, a request must be the offer of a promise in return for some consideration, which offer will become a promise (if not meanwhile revoked) if and when the consideration is furnished as requested. Thus the consideration must always be present at. the time of making the promise, and there is no such thing as a past consideration. If a service is rendered without any immediate promise or understanding that it is to be recompensed, it is a merely gratuitous act having no legal effect except such transfer of property of the like as may be contained in the act itself. If there be such a promise, express by words or tacit by understanding, to be inferred from the circumstances, there is at once an agreement, in which, if the recompense be not specified, the promise is to give such reward as may be found reasonable. A subsequent promise specifying the reward will not make an obligation where there was none before, but will show what the parties thought reasonable, and there is generally no reason why the parties' own estimate, in a matter which concerns only themselves, should not be accepted. Such a promise "may be treated either as an admission which evidences, or as a positive bargain which fixes, the amount of that reasonable remuneration on the faith of which the service was originally rendered". In many common circumstances the fact of service being rendered on request is ample evidence of an understanding that it was to be paid for according to the usual course.
NO, Mr. Nafees is not right in his claim because in the context of consideration Mr.Nafees bought that cow with his desire and consent, Although Mr.Ahmed assured him that cow was healthy and free from any disease, the Cow found suffering from disease but after one week, disease was not found at the time buying the cow but after a period of one week hence Mr.Ahmed is not guilty for this.
Mr Nafees is right if Mr Ahmed's assurance is in shape of Guarantee papers otherwise Mr Nafees do not have any Prove about the Mr Ahmed's Assurance is false/true